Review Reports - Early Childhood Care in Spain before the Lockdown

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

This article is not suitable for publication for a number of reasons.

Although it is a systematic review, the title does not identify this. The abstract does provide a general introduction but not eligibility criteria, data sources, participants and interventions, appraisal and synthesis methods, results limitations, conclusions and implications. Indeed the main methods section does not specify study characteristics, provide a report of the full electronic search strategy, state the process for selecting studies (screening, inclusion/exclusion criteria), method of data extraction, risk of bias and methods of handling data, and/or any combining results of studies. Results of analysis seem restricted to simple frequencies and impact and main findings seem unrelated to the main aim (related to perceptions of parents and professionals). Strength of evidence is not considered in the introduction or the main section where general interpretation of the results might be considered. Taking a cut-off point before COVID is not raised and/or justified.

The recommendation is to reject.

Some of the expression is not clear, for instance, reference to CIRC A, B and C which has not explained or justified for the reader.

Author Response

We thank all the reviewers for their thorough comments and final recommendations that helped to improve the manuscript. Thanks to them, we think that the paper is strongly improved, especially regarding the effectiveness in communication. We hope that the current version answers their concerns.

In the following, the detailed comments from reviewer 1.

Dear Reviewer 1,

a) About "Although it is a systematic review (...) studies."

This study is not a SLR "The methodology used for the bibliographic search was descriptive, taking as a reference [11] the Systematic Literature Review (SLR), through an exploratory mapping or scoping review of articles in Spanish and English on ECC" (lines 183-185). So, this article is another kind of review, without the need of following SLR recommendations, as PRISMA flow. Also, we added a table about our search strategies (Appendix A).

b) Results of analysis seem restricted to simple frequencies and impact and main findings seem unrelated to the main aim (related to perceptions of parents and professionals).

* Our main objective is broken down into the following objectives:

following specific objectives:

Review the scientific literature on ECC and the FCA in Spain.
To determine the frequency of articles on the subject in Spanish journals (an some international journals referred to Spain) included in the Integrated Classification of Scientific Journals (CIRC)

So our results abouts frequencies are related with the second specific objective.

c) Strength of evidence is not considered in the introduction or the main section where general interpretation of the results might be considered.

We disagree, these questions appears in the introducction and discussion

d) Taking a cut-off point before COVID is not raised and/or justified.

We agree , adding a few lines (lines 28 - 29).

e) Some of the expression is not clear, for instance, reference to CIRC A, B and C which has not explained or justified for the reader.

" Integrated Classification of Scientific Journals (CIRC - https://www.clasificacioncirc.es/ -) with criteria A, B and C (A for important impact and C for lesser impact journals; there is also a D category, for journal without impact), according to the year of publication, the origin of the journal, type of article and origin of the source" (lines 176 - 180, adding link).

So we hope we may clear some issues about our work.

Regards (authors)

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

ARTICLE REVIEW

Early Childhood Care in Spain before lockdown

The thesis that it is now accepted that every action within the framework of Early Childhood Care (EEC) must be carried out with the family in mind and with its participation is fully accurate. This thesis is confirmed by the extensive literature analyzes presented in the article - discussing activities related to early child care both before and after the COVID pandemic. In this light, the finding that there is a low level of knowledge about ECC in Spain results in the need for urgent intervention in this area in order to change the fact observed by the authors of the article. In this perspective, considering the content of the article as extremely up-to-date, it is worth noting that early care of a child is extremely important for its proper physical, emotional and social development. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected the functioning of many aspects of life, including childcare. Restrictions and recommendations related to the pandemic may affect the availability and organization of childcare. Many kindergartens, nurseries and other forms of care were temporarily closed or operated to a limited extent, which could make it difficult for parents to reconcile work and child care. Parents may also be concerned about exposing their children to the risk of contracting COVID-19 in public places, such as day care facilities and kindergartens. This may lead some of them to look for alternative solutions, such as home care, if possible. The pandemic has also affected the mental health of parents who have had to deal with the extra responsibilities and stress of caring for children during this difficult time. In response to these challenges, governments and communities are taking a variety of actions to support parents and ensure safe early care for children. These can be e.g. financial support programs for families, flexible solutions in remote work, or the implementation of security measures in care facilities. Whatever the circumstances, the key role of society is to recognize the importance of early childcare and to do everything possible to ensure that children are adequately supported and developed, even during the difficult times of the pandemic. In view of the above-described regularities, it is worth noting the contribution of the author's research results described in the article to strengthen Early Childhood Care (EEC) - regardless of the situation and prevailing conditions. It is a great pleasure to read the subsection describing the analysis of results in terms of dimensions (item 3.2). It is also worth emphasizing the skilful critical approach to the research results, showing their limitations and, at the same time, the need for their further continuation.

In conclusion, it seems that while improving the article, it is worth considering - even should - compensating the entire research results in the summary position, the lack of which clearly reduces the value of the article.

Author Response

In the following, the detailed comments from reviewer 2:

Thanks for your kind review, we change following your suggestions the abstract (but with the limitation of the amount of words).

Regards

(Authors)

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

I agree with the author's insistence that Family-Centered Approaches for Early Intervention are now considered best practice and are more productive for helping the child and family. What I'm not clear on after reading the article, is how the frequency of the articles support this main thesis of the authors. In other words, I’m not following the logic of the analysis. Because the author found more publications related to family perceptions than FCA, does that mean that practitioners are not using FCA? Could it be that more researchers are interested in family perceptions to their interventions than on the content of FCA? In other words, the basis of the article – that frequency is how we should determine content, is difficult for me to follow. I think what is needed to clarify this is more description about the articles in each category or dimension.

With that said, I do believe examining the frequency of research topics within a domain is quite interesting – I would just be careful as to what conclusions could be drawn from such a review. For example, the author reported, “A more in-depth analysis shows that, although FCA is accepted as the most beneficial for child development, it is also true that it has not been possible to achieve full family integration in interventions [6].” As a reader, I don’t know where the data are that the author uses to conclude that. What dimension talked about full family integration? From lines 350 – 366, the reader is wondering how the author concluded that from the analysis presented. There is no detail about the specific articles used to draw these conclusions.

Overall, the article is well-written – My suggestion is to detail more depth about individual articles that were reviewed – and to discuss specifically, how quantity of articles along dimensions relates to the focus on what the author is advocating for – FCA.

Author Response

In the following, the detailed comments from reviewer 3:

a) "What I'm not clear (...) clarify this is more description about the articles in each category or dimension.

Most relevant references appears in 3.2 . Development of this maybe over the maximum lenght ot the articles (3000 - 1000, our work is already in almost 8000). About quantity of articles along dimensions, we agree... it is not the same scientific articles than practice, but we believe that this is a common issue in all reviews. We added a consideration about that in the conclussions (line 389). About quantify, within a scoping review, we believe it is useful for a first approach., highlighting the most important topics and his relevance along this period of time.

b) With that said, I do believe examining the frequency of research topics within a domain is quite interesting – I would just be careful as to what conclusions could be drawn from such a review (...) “A more in-depth analysis shows that, although FCA is accepted as the most beneficial for child development, it is also true that it has not been possible to achieve full family integration in interventions [6].”

This expression had been changed in a more conservative way.

c) From lines 350 – 366 (...)

The article offers a dozen of references in theses lines to justify our text. Maybe something to consider, put this fragment into results or in discussion, but we believe it is better in discussion.

d) Overall, the article is well-written (...)

Thanks for yours suggestions.

Regards (Authors)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

No further comment to make as no substantial change since last submission. Does not follow the conventional structure and format of a systematic review.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We want to notice that this is not a systematic review. It is a scoping review.

Regards,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

I propose to publish the article.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your time.

Regards,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

You were more cautious with your conclusions. I still feel that you need to make a stronger case for why frequency of articles reveals priorities in the field.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your kind suggestions. We add a new note in discussion about our conclussions based in amount of articles.

We consider that in a scoping review it is a key indicator.

Regards,

Authors

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Thank you for providing more clarity about the process of the review. I found it a bit difficult to read in its editing state – and saw more issues with the English and grammar than before. Please go back and edit accordingly – especially watch for grammatical errors. What I am still unclear about is how the author makes conclusions based on frequency of topics of articles found in their search. For example, where the author gets the information that is written in the conclusion such as that below:

ECC in the life of a child and family begins when they receive the "first news". These two words, designate the crudeness [45] of the contact with the presence of disability or disorder; many families receive the news before birth or almost immediately and others will have to suffer a long and uncertain wait, without being able to name the problem. In addition, giving this information is a complicated task. Coming to terms with the situation means readjusting that family model. But it should also involve empowerment, where they are allowed may to be part of the intervention. This is the importance of a truly Family-Centered Approach, as studies show that it is the one that can bring the most benefits. However, there is still a long way to go.

By counting the number of articles – how does the author conclude what is needed? There needs to be some sort of table for that describes the content of the articles so that the reader understands the conclusions – or in lieu of discussion of content – the author must make the assumptions more clear – how they arrive at the conclusions based on frequency counts.

There are many grammatical errors in this version based on the editing of the original version. Please have authors scrutinize the article to correct these errors.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We trust this letter finds you in good health. We are writing in response to the feedback provided concerning our manuscript titled "Early Childhood Care in Spain before the lockdown." We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the thoughtful review of our work and the valuable comments provided. We appreciate the time and effort invested in evaluating our research.

In response to the concerns raised, we have conducted a comprehensive revision of the manuscript, with particular attention to grammatical errors. We have carefully proofread the document and made the necessary corrections to ensure the clarity and correctness of the language throughout the paper. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the overall quality of the manuscript.

Regarding query about how we arrived at certain conclusions based on the frequency of topics in the articles included in our search, as indicated in the sections highlighted in yellow, some conclusions can be drawn, such as the importance of the family in the intervention, based on the number of articles that point this out in the results section 3.2.

We trust that these revisions will address your concerns effectively and enhance the overall quality and rigor of the manuscript.

Once again, we would like to express our appreciation for the reviewer's constructive feedback

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Authors

Round 4

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

I appreciated the review of grammar and the highlighting of the contents of the articles which makes your points more clearly. In your highlights, you connected the frequency of topics mentioned with your final conclusions. It is more clear now how you reached those conclusions.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The main problem with this manuscript is the writing quality. It appears that the authors need to consult with a writing expert before this manuscript is considered for publication. Too many sentences are wordy and poorly written. This makes many parts of the manuscript difficult to understand.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank for your suggestion. A deep review of the text have been done to improve their style quality, by a native speaker.

Regards,

Authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

This review article aims to reveal what the perception of families and professionals is, concerning Early Intervention Thus, a Systematic Review of the Literature (SLR) was followed through a mapping of articles related to Spain in Scopus or Dialnet (CIRC A +, A, B or C) before COVID-19 lockdown. 35 selected articles were analyzed based on three dimensions: feelings, diagnosis, and needs.

This review article is informative and meets its goals. The description of the method and the details are edifying.

Some observations regarding the presentation:

-The abstract is underdeveloped, does not cover what has been done and needs to be improved.

Line 179: 3.1. First approach… but there is no “second approach” -subtitle

(is it: 3.2. Analysis of the results in terms of dimensions),

-Elucidate whether the dimensions in the analyses are preconceived categories (based on theoretical premise).

Usually the review article present meta-analyses. For the quantitative papers, I suggest (there is not necessary however), if the authors like to, a meta-analysis, which would give an additional value to the article.

The discussion section is nice- A paragraph discussing the limitations of the study could be added.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We thank your thorough comments and final recommendations that helped to improve the manuscript. Thanks to them, we think that the paper is strongly improved.

a) About abstract we do some minor changes following your comments, but we consider describes the article (with the IMRD structure and 200 words).

b) We modify 3.1 and 3.2 subtitles and introduce a short explanation about the origin of the dimensions.

c) We agree, perhaps a meta-analysis maybe interesting but it is not compulsory.

d) We added a lines at the end about limitations.

We hope that the current version answers your concerns.

Regards,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

This article is based on an excellent review of literature. The aim of the paper is: 1. to review the scientific literature on ECC and the FCA in Spain, and 2. to determine the frequency of articles on this topic in Spanish journals.

The methodology followed is quite clear and adequate to the objective stated by the authors. Authors describe in a very detailed and clear way all the phases followed for the selection of 35 articles.

The analysis categories found from the review of the 35 articles reviewed are also well explained.

As a result of a methodologically adequate process, the results presented and discussed have scientific credibility.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your kind words about our article.

Regards,

Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic of this work is very interesting, actual, and important. Thank you for the possibility to review it.

I think the systematic review require more precise processing. I miss the literature or systematic review protocol, more precise question, more detail information about the searching procedure and search strategy, the follow diagram of the searching strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the list of included studies (the table of systematic review studies) with the data extracted from each study (the source, classification of the study, main topic area, the authors, summary of the study), more detail information about quality assessment of the articles. It is not clear, why the authors used only two databases and why they used different keywords in each database. There is no conclusion in the article and limitation of the study.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We thank your thorough comments and final recommendations that helped to improve the manuscript. Thanks to them, we think that the paper is strongly improved. We hope that the current version answers their concerns.

We agree with your considerations about systematic review but, indeed, our article is not SLR; is a mapping / scoping review (as is indicated in the text), more general view taking into account more efficient way of work of SLR. For this reason we don`t provide a PRISMA diagram model, for example, but try to explain our search of articles.

We use Scopus because is a very extensive qualitity database and provides a more global perspective than JCR (more exclusive). Dialnet is the main database in Spain (and in Spanish). Using different keywords obbeys to the different scope of the database, that allow more specific search o less.

Concerning conclusion, we follow the instructions for authors of Encyclopedia, not been compulsory including conclusion as a different part. We introduce our conclusions inside Discussion, and we added a few lines and the end about limitations.

We hope that the current version answers their concerns.

Regards,

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the authors have improved parts of this article, the writing quality is still problematic. The article still needs extensive editing to correct and improve grammar and style.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed the minor issues that I have raised, thus I consider the manuscript suitable for publication in the present form.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks to the authors for the explanation. I don´t agree, that the paper is strongly improved. The authors did only minor revision. But they have explained, that their article is not SLR and for this reason it is not necessary to use more precise processing.